The Ontario attempt to harmonize its provincial sales tax regime with the federal GST has the charity sector struggling to understand the impact these sweeping changes will have on the various types of charities within the sector.

This year may be particularly beneficial for individuals in the latter category because of the unique opportunity afforded donors in the Conservative government's tax changes announced in the May 2006 budget. The most prominent of the changes allowed for the donation of shares in public companies to public charities (i.e. all but private foundations) on a tax free basis.

After the 2006 Budget, many observers expected that the elimination of tax on the donation of publicly listed securities to "public" charities would be extended to private foundations, and, indeed, Budget 2007 lived up to this prediction.

Overseas operation is fundamental to the operation of many charities, especially religious charities, and so it is important for these charities to have a good understanding of the law regarding carrying out charitable activities overseas. Given that the government subsidizes registered charities to the extent that it gives tax credits for the amount donated, it should not be surprising that the CRA attempts to exert as much control over funds spent overseas as funds spent domestically.

Since June 2005, the Canada Revenue Agency has had the power to impose penalties on charities for breaking certain rules which stop short of revoking the charity's registered status. These intermediate penalties range from a $500 penalty for not filing a charitable information return to paying 110% of an undue benefit bestowed upon a third party.

It is important for charities to be flexible in their thinking when raising funds. In this way, charities may be able to amass donations of items they would otherwise never have sought let alone receive. One such area that deserves further focus by charities is that involving life insurance.

The first and most obvious way is that charities dedicated to relieving poverty obviously have greater restraints put upon them in times when more people are suffering from poverty. Unfortunately, just as the individual suffers from these economic troubles, so too does the charity.

The first interesting change is the abolishment of the PST and the adoption of the HST. While the official government announcement indicated that the rebates available to charities under the HST effectively made charities revenue neutral between it and the PST.

In 1999, Parliament amended the Income Tax Act (the "Act") to create what are commonly called Third Party Civil Penalties. The provisions, which are broadly worded, ostensibly target those individuals who assist others in making what the CRA would believe is a false statement or omission on their tax returns.

For the second time in six years the Federal government is changing the disbursement quota calculation for charities. Originally instituted in 1976 as a way to force charities to spend their funds on their charitable activities, the quota has turned into a cross between a math nightmare and an obstacle for the growth of small charities.

Homeowners in most provinces know that the land transfer tax due on purchase of the home can be the straw that breaks the camel's back as far as affordability goes. Most provinces have a version of the land transfer tax (as called in Ontario, or the Property Transfer Tax or Land Purchase Tax in other provinces). The tax is generally calculated as a percentage of the property being transferred, so the higher the value of the property the greater the tax.

The advent of the HST system in Ontario has been treated with a distinct lack of enthusiasm by charities. On the one hand, as the HST system is based on the GST regime some may feel comfortable with HST as simply being an extension of the GST (the only problem is that the GST is an enigma to most). On the other hand, the silence about the HST in the charities community is in some ways surprising given the now enhanced consequences to directors and charities for misunderstanding the law.

We are periodically faced with the unfortunate situation when a charity or not for profit is forced into bankruptcy or receivership. Unfortunately, giving clear advice in the area is complicated by the relative lack of applicable law. In one circumstance we were confronted with a situation as to whether a going concern operating as a charitable trust could make a proposal in bankruptcy.

This case serves as a warning to any advisors that receive commissions paid by promoters to avoid potentially conflicting situations regardless of their confidence in the shelter. And perhaps more importantly, advisors should hold themselves to the highest fiduciary standards in all cases, even if their relationship with the donor is more fleeting thatn was the one between the Lembergs and Mr. Perris.

The first and likely most recurring situation is a return of member's dues. In theory, there is nothing wrong with the organization returning amounts paid by the members to the organization. However, in circumstances where the organization has provided some (non monetary) benefits to its members the organization would have to deduct the value of these benefits from the amounts being returned to the member.